Posts about Jack Evans

Public Spaces

Unexpected tree removal alarms neighbors

by David Alpert   •   March 5, 2009 3:53 pm

Last night, residents of S Street NW between 15th and 17th discovered Emergency No Parking signs stating that the trees on the block would be removed. The residents had not known about any tree removal, nor had the local ANC commissioners. The blocks had already lost several mature trees in recent years, and residents worried about losing more.

An hour, several DC Council staff, some representatives of the Mayor, and some frantic calls to DDOT's Urban Forestry Administration later, everyone found out the truth. Only three trees on the two blocks were coming down. These trees were either dead or seriously damaged in recent storms, but, according to ANC Commissioner Jack Jacobson, "There was evidently a problem that the contractor had decided timing on removing the trees and had not properly consulted with DDOT, much less the neighborhood."

This resembles a similar controversy last year. DDOT removed some trees in Kalorama Park. At first, neighbors and members of the Council were outraged that DDOT had taken these trees down with no notice. Later, they discovered that the organization which helps maintain the park had been asking to remove the trees for years. The ANC had known about the request when it was first made, but it hadn't come before them recently. The Department of Parks and Recreation hadn't done anything about it. Trees in parks later became DDOT's responsibility, so DDOT moved ahead with the preexisting request.

These tree controversies haven't hinged on the professional judgement of DDOT's Urban Forestry Administration. They seem to make decisions thoughtfully and reasonably. However, when residents hear about the tree removals at the last minute, for whatever reason, it's natural to become upset. This is a common criticism of DDOT. The professionals at that organization very frequently make the right choice, but without communication, they don't get credit for their good work.

Last year, Councilmember Jim Graham introduced a bill to require more notice before DDOT removes trees, unless there is an imminent danger. Jack Evans, whose ward includes today's tree scare, also cosponsored the legislation. The Council didn't act on it, but perhaps the Council should revive the legislation. Or, better yet, DDOT would fix their processes to ensure that, when possible, neighbors and ANCs get reasonable notice. In almost all cases, I'm sure the neighbors and ANC representatives will conclude, as in these cases, that DDOT's expert arborists know what they are doing.

Transit

Breakfast links: Cuts and losses

by David Alpert   •   February 2, 2009 7:42 am

Chopping the point: Clark Realty is not going to develop Poplar Point. Clark could no longer afford to do the whole project amid the bad economic climate, and DC decided to end the partnership rather than pay a portion of the cost. The city will move forward with the land transfer and EIS for now, prepare the land itself, and then re-bid the development. DC United and the District have stopped talking about a new stadium on the site as well, according to the Post. Marion Barry blames the administration for this project's collapse. Meanwhile, another developer has backed out of a project at Wheaton's Metro Plaza.

Blocking the train: Virginia State Senator William Wampler of Bristol, in Virginia's far west where I-81 crosses into Tennessee, wants intercity rail to Washington. That's great, but less great is his budget amendment that would block the planned commuter rail service to Richmond and Lynchburg until the train goes all the way to Bristol. Rail advocates and the Chamber of Commerce guarantee the bill would kill any hope of new trains anytime soon. Tip: Daniel.

Record ridership, time for service cuts: Chris Zimmerman laments the folly of funding capital improvements in transit, as the stimulus does, while leaving operating expenses in the cold. Transit agencies around the nation will be buying new buses to run less service. Roger Lewis argues for more transit funding, and Steve Offutt agrees. Get There discusses some reader proposals for cutting Metro costs.

RIP Don Praisner: Montgomery County Councilmember Don Praisner has died just one year after his wife and less than a year after being elected to complete her Council term. Praisner has asked the County Council to appoint a caretaker to finish the term but who won't run again, to save the County the expense of another special election.

Rats vs. rates: Jack Evans proposes a tax credit for businesses that buy trash compactors, which help reduce rat infestations.

Benefits of open information: Wired profiles Mark Gorton, founder of New York's Open Planning Project (which publishes Streetsblog). The article focuses on TOPP's open source GeoServer, which enables many people to build GIS maps who never could before. Tip: Tom.

Transit

New council legislation: Third Church, WMATA compact, and more

by David Alpert   •   January 30, 2009 7:41 am

Last year, Councilmember Jack Evans introduced a bill to exempt recently-designed churches from historic preservation. I and others argued that it could exempt other properties that might be, at the very least, less controversial. Evans withdrew the legislation amid criticism and the primary election; Marion Barry later reintroduced it, but it didn't come to a vote.

Now, as promised, Evans has introduced new legislation (PDF). This time, it specifically only exempts this one property from the historic preservation law. I'd suggest that the bill specifically clarify that if the church ceases to own the property, the exemption would end. Barry also reintroduced the broader bill once again.

Jim Graham introduced a bill to amend the WMATA Compact under the terms of the deal worked out between the federal government and DC, Maryland, and Virginia. Each jurisdiction must contribute $50 million per year to WMATA, and the feds will match the $150 million total. Under the bill, as promised in the deal, they also get two board seats, appointed by the General Services Administration, as long as they're holding up their end of the bargain and contributing their share.

In addition, the bill requires one of the federal representatives to be a regular rider of Metro services. Good idea; how about demanding that of all board members? It also adds a position of inspector general.

Other measures introduced recently include a resolution to confirm Gabe Klein, and this bill by Barry and Harry Thomas, Jr. that seems to seek to reestablish a Museum of the City of Washington, DC at the Carnegie Library building in Mount Vernon Square. The museum closed in 2004 from low attendance, and now the Historical Society occupies the building including some public exhibits.

Parking

Have DC Councilmembers ever tried to park downtown on a Saturday?

by David Alpert   •   December 17, 2008 8:32 am

The Council passed Jim Graham's parking meter rate hike yesterday, raising $1/hour meters to $2 and 50¢ meters to 75¢, and restoring much-needed city housing programs. But to get enough political support from the Council, Graham and co-introducer Tommy Wells had to agree to an amendment from Jack Evans designating $1 million of the revenue raised to the O Street Market project in Shaw, and one from David Catania that retained our current, nonsensical policy of free street parking on weekends.

The parking increase will fund the HPAP program that helps low-income people afford a down payment, the Housing First program that moves homeless people from shelters to their own homes, and more. Councilmember Wells praised Graham's leadership on the issue as "very forward thinking," and Chairman Vincent Gray called the bill a "very proactive approach."

But Catania and outgoing member Carol Schwartz both spoke passionately about free Saturday parking as an incentive to draw suburban residents into DC to shop and eat, and to encourage DC residents to stay in the District on weekends to spend their dollars. It might be a compelling argument, except for one thing: there's never any available street parking downtown or in busy neighborhood retail districts on weekend afternoons and evenings.

Schwartz introduced and passed a ban on Saturday parking fees in 1997. "We get money when people come into DC to eat or shop, or DC residents stay to eat," she said. "I asked people, 'Why do you go to the suburbs?' They said, 'They've got free parking.'"

That might have been true in 1997, but not today. People go downtown because of the great restaurants, exciting nightlife, and walkable shopping streets. If you just want to drive to a big box store, the suburbs will win out every time. The nice restaurants downtown all run valet services. If free parking really deters so many people, why are these restaurants packed while the valets are charging $10 for parking during dinner?

And the free, on-street parking that does exist is constantly full. Making the parking free just swaps one suburban advantage, free parking, for another: available parking. As Tommy Wells explained, "How many people here believe they could get in the car right now and find a place to park down the street? ... That parking is all locked up. It does not serve small businesses" that benefit from turnover, not from free parking.

Yet Councilmember after Councilmember spoke up for this amendment keeping parking free on Saturdays, as if anyone really could find parking on Saturdays. Free parking is a "great incentive to bring people downtown," said Catania, "to visit shops and restaurants and our cultural life downtown." Marion Barry added, "we don't want to make it more difficult for people to shop downtown." I seriously started to wonder if any of these folks actually ever drive downtown on a Saturday. Perhaps their special Councilmember parking passes, which many use to park illegally, make them believe that anyone can easily park, with only $1-$2 an hour making the difference.

Phil Mendelson voted against the measure entirely. He argued that this measure is "piecemeal," but said that he "can support a comprehensive review of parking demand." Well, one day we will be discussing performance parking in more neighborhoods in DC. I hope Mendelson will support that program when it comes.

Muriel Bowser also voted against the bill, not because of the parking fees, but because of the earmarks, and particularly Evans' earmark for the O Street Market. "We're taking what should be transportation dollars and putting in human services, and now we're taking what should be transportation dollars and putting it into an economic development grant," she said. Bowser also praised free Saturday parking.

This measure will raise some valuable revenue for important housing projects. But it also revealed many of our Councilmembers' ignorance about the true dynamics of parking. It's not 1997 anymore, and downtown is booming. Keeping parking free only makes it harder for people to park downtown. Schwartz and Catania struck a blow against small businesses today, with the very act they claim will help.

Parking

Our curb cut is limited to the present circumstances

by David Alpert   •   November 6, 2008 2:26 pm

How often does Councilmember Phil Mendelson (at-large) personally show up to the Board of Zoning Adjustment to testify in support of a variance? I suspect not often, but show up he did at yesterday's BZA hearing on the 14th and U "Utopia" project.

Mendelson read a letter in support of locating the proposed garage entrance on 14th Street instead of in the alley behind. The developer, the Dupont ANC, and local residents and businesses all want this as well. Councilmember Jack Evans also submitted a concurring letter, which his commitee clerk, Jeff Coudriet (who also lives nearby), presented at the hearing. The BZA voted to approve the curb cut and all of the variances the developer needed.

I agree in this case. This is an unusual block with an unusual alley system, and the garage entrance poses many problems. But I'm very concerned that this not set precedent for other, less exceptional situations. Along U Street west of 13th, developers plan to replace the one-story, bland Rite Aid with a larger hotel and ground-floor retail. The rear of the building faces a standard alley, but a row of townhouses back onto the other side of the alley. Some of those residents are trying to pressure that developer The developer currently proposes to build their garage entrance across the 13th Street sidewalk, instead of off the adjacent straight alley.

Unlike at Utopia, using this alley doesn't require cars to make two sharp turns and take three separate alleys. Unlike at Utopia, there are no alley dwellings. This garage entrance could be located at the eastern end of the alley, so cars only have to drive on a very short part. I'd even be okay with widening the alley a little bit right at the end, so there's enough room for one car in each direction. But another, extremely wide curb cut right next to an existing alley curb cut harms the rest of the public too much, while alley access to the garage harms the local property owners little.

It's clear that some major political chips got called in to get Mendelson to show up in person for the Utopia curb cut, and to generate the repeated letters from Evans supporting neighbors' position on the project. The political pressure was so potent that yesterday afternoon, DDOT decided to withdraw its original comments opposing the curb cut. That's politics, and I don't agree with those who complain about corruption every time an elected official weighs in. Taking positions on issues and pushing agencies on behalf of constituents is what elected officials do, and if you want to influence them, organize.

While Evans and Mendelson weren't wrong about this curb cut, we need to get organized and connected enough to ensure that Councilmembers aren't sending letters in support of every curb cut when some residents don't want traffic in their alley. Alley traffic impacts the residents, but a curb cut impacts everyone else. A curb cut increases the opportunities for vehicles to hit pedestrians and bicycles; it reduces the space we have for sidewalk cafes; it visually widens the street, making drivers go faster.

Fortunately, Mendelson's letter gives us good ammunition for differentiating the Utopia case from others, like the 13th and U Rite Aid/Hotel:

There are very few communities in the District like the one comprising the residents of [the alleys behind Utopia]. The two others that come to mind are Blagden Alley in Shaw and Brown's Court on Capitol Hill ... It is important to consider that this space is atypical. It is unlike the typical square with all the dwellings fronting on the public street, only to back up to alleys. [The residents of these alleys] must walk down their alleys to go anywhere, which creates unavoidable pedestrian and vehicular conflicts.

Public policy must balance a larger impact on a few against the smaller impact on many. Typically, in the political process, the few are better organized and louder than the many. Through this blog and Smart Growth organizations, we the many are getting organized. And I want to make it clear to Evans, Mendelson, and any other elected official that while I don't disagree with their views on the Utopia curb cut, such an exception, and their political muscle on its behalf, should be extremely, extremely rare.

Update: Wallach Place resident Guy Podgornik wrote in to explain that Wallach residents (the people across the alley) weren't pushing for the 13th Street curb cut, and heard this pressure came from HPO. I'm glad Wallach residents are okay with using a small portion of the alley for the parking and loading. At this point, the developer's latest plans include the 13th Street curb cut, and DDOT, HPO, and advocates should oppose it.

Development

"Excitement" not worth $1B stadium

by David Alpert   •   October 14, 2008 11:11 am

Mayor Fenty wants to bring the Redskins back to DC, calling it "a big mistake" to let the team move to Landover in 1997. Why does Fenty want them back? Civic pride. Fenty told the Post,

Photo by dbking on Flickr.

"If people were around D.C. when the Redskins won the Super Bowl and in the quote-unquote heyday of past years, there's nothing like it in Washington, D.C. There's nothing like the excitement and having a Super Bowl team, walking around after the Super Bowl. So we want all that to come back to the city. It was a big mistake letting them leave, but we'll get them back."

When it comes to stadiums, pride often goeth before a fall—economic fall. As the article points out, New York and Dallas are both building new stadiums at a cost of about $1 billion apiece. DC could do a lot to generate civic pride with $1 billion. We could throw the biggest state fair ever. We could lobby for voting rights in a campaign larger than any seen before. We could build a whole streetcar system. We could repave most of our sidewalks with gold.

And there's one more advantage of buying civic pride directly instead of relying on a football team: you can get the "excitement" even without having to win a Super Bowl, something the Redskins haven't done in 16 years.

Plus, football stadiums almost never help the surrounding neighborhood. As Marc Fisher pointed out in the context of the soccer stadium, while the Verizon Center hosts 220 events a year and the Nationals ballpark around 100, an NFL team only plays eight home games a year. The strong tradition of tailgating means that more people will drive to football than to baseball, even if the stadium is next to Metro instead of a mile's walk down a suburban street.

Economists have found that stadiums never pay off for their host cities in bringing in concession revenue or more fan spending at nearby restaurants; if anything, nearby restaurants just cannibalize other restaurants elsewhere. The study I saw (I can't find the link just now) found that the a stadium only actually benefits a city when it stimulates development in the surrounding area, and even then it still may fall short of spending the money directly on economic development.

Near the ballpark, in what was a blighted part of town, there is substantial development; some claim that's because of the ballpark, others claim it would have happened anyway. But around RFK stadium, there's no way it will generate development. The nearby neighborhood is doing just fine, and most of it is already built out and even historically protected; other parts, like the Reservation 13/Hill East development, are moving forward just fine on their own.

If anything, replacing the acres of parking with more mixed-use neighborhood and parks, perhaps like NCPC's National Capital Framework Plan suggests, would do more for the city's and surrounding neighborhood's economic development than any football stadium.

Fenty:

"As Jack Evans has pointed out on the city council, [the land in Landover] could probably be used for a lot of other valuable things. We have a stadium site sitting here ready, willing and able to go. A new stadium could go on there. We could probably donate almost all of the land to the stadium and, I think, build a brand-new stadium that could accommodate a Super Bowl that has all of the new trappings of new stadiums. ... We just want it to happen as fast as humanly possible."

Memo to Mayor Fenty and Jack Evans: our land here could be used for a lot of other valuable things, too. Let's just start using that land, and forget about blowing $1 billion just for the occasional possibility of a little excitement.

Sustainability

Hybrid taxis: the crushing burden of the tax break nobody will use?

by David Alpert   •   September 29, 2008 2:39 pm

Today, a handful of business owners showed up to oppose a tax break for themselves because of burdens that the bill won't impose, while other Councilmembers oppose it because they don't think it will work. And thus, in the bizarre land of today's hearing, a completely voluntary tax incentive that nobody will take advantage of will put people out of business who aren't affected at all.

Today, the Council considered the hybrid taxi incentive bill, which would do two things. First, it would give a $2,000 tax credit to any taxi operator incorporated in DC, who lives in DC, for purchasing a hybrid or "alternative fuel vehicle." Second, it calls on the administration to create a plan to gradually convert more DC taxis to hybrids, starting with 5% in 2009 up to 50% in 2017.

Other cities, including New York and Boston, are far ahead of DC. Both of those cities are requiring conversion of all taxis to hybrids by 2012 (NYC) and 2015 (Boston). Taxis are a particularly ripe opportunity for emissions reduction because each vehicle drives far more than other cars (75,000-100,000 miles per year), idle for long periods of time, and drive in stop-and-go traffic most of the rest of the time.

Opposition followed two paths: those who don't think the bill will actually work (led by Jim Graham), and those who object to the burden of a phantom mandate on taxi owners, or who just wanted to vent about meters, led by industry representatives.

The Graham school of thought goes like this: At most 25% of taxi drivers would even be eligible, because many drivers live outside DC and many aren't incorporated. A used Prius costs about twice as much as a used Crown Vic, and a $2,000 tax credit couldn't cover the difference. And finally, most drivers don't even pay $2,000 in taxes, so they couldn't even get the whole credit. Plus, the targets aren't mandates, so that part won't have any force. Why pass a bill that affects very few drivers, might not incentivize any hybrid purchases, and sets targets with no force?

As witnesses (and GGW readers) Ken Archer and Abby Hall argued, that doesn't provide a reason not to pass the bill. If only a few taxis switch to hybrids, that's a few more than we have today. And setting targets, pointed out Jim Dougherty of the Sierra Club, is how most emission reductions take place. Sure, maybe the bill is "wimpy," as Councilmember Tommy Wells put it; that's a reason to improve the bill, not to discard it completely.

Meanwhile, several taxi industry representatives and drivers claimed that the bill will put drivers out of business. They seemed to be testifying against a completely different, imaginary bill, one which requires taxis to switch to hybrids instead of just providing tax breaks.

But as Wells pointed out, the bill is entirely voluntary. "It would be a big strategic mistake for taxi drivers in this city to regard this as an attack," Archer said. "They should jump over this, which is a much better approach than was taken in other cities." The only possibly unfair portion, Wells said, is the one that makes DC residents eligible for the credit but not Maryland or Virginia residents. And that kind of unfairness had few objectors.

Drivers did argue that $2,000 won't be enough to help them buy a hybrid, and that the Prius doesn't have enough trunk or passenger space. Graham and Wells agreed that perhaps we need a greater incentive.

Jim Dougherty of the Sierra Club also raised some valuable technical objections to the language. By naming hybrid technology, the bill ignores plug-in electric vehicles and other technologies we might see in the future. Better, he suggested, to create an incentive for any car that gets 40 mpg or better, and automatically raise that figure over time.

Evans, on the other hand, worried about the fiscal impact of the tax break amid a likely $131 million budget shortfall, or more, and the failure of the federal bailout plan fourteen blocks down Pennsylvania Avenue while this hearing was in progress. I'm sure a few people concerned by other past Evans tax breaks or tax-free bond issues might find a little irony in this.

If it won't break the bank, the Council should pass some sort of hybrid taxicab incentive. This particular bill may not be the one, for a myriad of reasons. But we should fashion an incentive that adequately encourages new environmentally friendly taxis while retaining the purely voluntary nature of the current bill, and one which rewards the ultimate effect on the environment rather than the specific technology we use to get there.

My complete notes from the hearing below.

Government

What's happening this week

by David Alpert   •   September 8, 2008 3:18 pm

The District is getting back into full swing after the quiet of August. Lots going on this week: here's a small sampling.

Tonight: The Zoning Commission will give its feedback on the draft parking regulations. After listening to comments at the hearing a month ago and reading the volumes of written comments, we'll finally hear what they think. The meeting starts at 6:30, but parking is the fourth of ten topics. I'll be listening via webcast and liveblogging here.

Tuesday: Tuesday is the primary election! I'll be voting for Jack Evans in the Ward 2 Council race because of his more forward-looking approach and better position on roads. If you're in Ward 8, every good blog I know of in the area has endorsed Charles Wilson. For the Republican primary, Patrick Mara is more bicycle-friendly than Carol Schwartz.

In the evening, the Action Commitee for Transit meeting (7:30 at the Silver Spring Center, 8818 Georgia Ave) will be interesting. The topic is "Transit-Oriented Development: Hype vs. Reality"; the guest speakers will examine Montgomery County's recent actions which supposedly promote TOD, but many argue simply create more sprawl.

Wednesday: The DC Circulation Study is holding the first of four meetings on bus needs in DC, and the only meeting in Northwest. This meeting will especially focus on plans to extend the Circulator to Adams Morgan in place of the 98 buse. Residents also plan to ask about having buses from Calvert continue over the bridge to Woodley Park Metro instead of turning around at the Toddle House on the east side of the bridge. 6:30 pm at the Mary's Center (pink building), 2355 Ontario Rd NW, in Adams Morgan.

Thursday: If you're free during the day, Jeff Speck will talk about how zoning rules discourage walkable urban development, including his experience building a house in the U Street area (which we discussed recently. National Building Museum, 401 F St NW (Judiciary Square).

Two Capitol Hill ANCs will discuss (and presumably pass resolutions condemning) the proposed Shell station at 14th and Maryland NE. ANC 6C meets Wednesday night at the Newseum, 555 Penn. NW, 8th Floor starting at 7 pm, and 6A (which contains the Shell) follows the next night, 7 pm Thursday at the Miner Elementary School, 601 15th St. NE.

Bicycling

Breakfast links: Frustrated about driving edition

by David Alpert   •   September 8, 2008 8:45 am

The great bike lane debate continues: Friday's post on right hooks and Alice Swanson reignited the debate over bike lanes. Do they make cyclists safer (by giving them dedicated space) or less safe (by moving them next to traffic where turning cars can hit them)? Infosnack HQ found this thoughtful paper on the issue.

Inconvenient for you isn't "dangerous": The Post's Dr. Gridlock sides with MoCo transportation engineers who narrowed Arcola Avenue (near Georgia and Unviersity), adding pedestrian refuges and bulb-outs. The changes make a dangerous intersection safer for pedestrians, but irritate some drivers that liked to go fast on the former shortcut.

Logan ANC hotheaded about Zipcar: Last Wednesday, the Logan Circle ANC voted to recommend removal of a Zipcar lot at 14th and Corcoran because Zipcar hadn't landscaped it as promised and a Zipcar rep hadn't yet shown up to discuss the issue. Later in the meeting, once the rep arrived and answered questions, the ANC withdrew the resolution. 14th and You is disappointed in the ANC for its hasty voting on this issue and on the racially-tinged single sales ban.

Evans illegally parked in crosswalk: Channel 9 has the story about Councilmember Evans' car sitting in a crosswalk across from the Verizon Center during Saturday's game. Via ANC2C02 Forum.

Transit

2003 WMATA expansion map

by David Alpert   •   September 5, 2008 1:28 pm

When I went to interview Jack Evans, I discovered this map which hangs in his office. It's a 2003 map, apparently produced by WMATA, showing the Silver Line and a potential separated Blue Line alignment. Blue Line maps, such as this one in the Post, never showed a lot of detail about station locations; this one does.

Of course, just because WMATA produced it doesn't mean they'll definitely put stations in these places (if the line were ever even built), but it's an interesting window into their thinking at the time. Despite what some have hypothesized, this line does go down H Street (the logical place). I still prefer merging the new back into the current one at River Terrace over a connection at Stadium-Armory. The former enables routing trains in from the east onto either line. On the other hand, since the segment around Stadium-Armory is actually north-south, this arrangement could allow eastbound trains on the Blue Line to immediately continue westbound on the Orange and vice versa.

This map shows no direct transfer at Union Station, since it's fairly far from H to the Red Line platforms, though I hope they'd try to build a tunnel. There doesn't appear to be a transfer at the Convention Center either, possibly for the reasons discussed here. Making the transfers work would enormously increase the value of the line, and ought to be a part of any plan. Finally, a station at Thomas Circle would be really useful.

Of course, tunnels and stations add cost. A new subway line would cost billions, anyway (not unlike new or widened freeways as our suburban jurisdictions are still building). Is light rail more important? Can we have both? Would Virginia pay for much of the line, since it adds capacity in from the west? Will federal spending priorities change if we have an Obama-Biden administration? We can hope.